Our layer shell implementation assigns every layer surface to an output
on creation. It tracks this output using the output field on the
underlying wlr_layer_surface_v1 structure. As such, much of the existing
code assumes that output is always non-NULL and omits NULL checks
accordingly.
However, there are currently two cases where we destroy a
sway_layer_surface and output is NULL. The first is when we can't find
an output to assign the surface to and destroy it immediately after
creation. The second is when we destroy a surface in response to its
output getting destroyed, as we set output to NULL in
handle_output_destroy() before we call wlr_layer_surface_v1_destroy(),
which is what calls the appropriate unmap and destroy callbacks.
The former case doesn't cause any problems, since we haven't even
allocated a sway_layer_surface at that point or registered any
callbacks. The latter case, however, currently triggers a crash (#6120)
if a popup is visible, since our popup_handle_unmap() implementation
can't handle a NULL output.
To fix this issue, keep output set until right before we free the
sway_layer_surface. All we need to do is remove some of the cleanup
logic from handle_output_destroy(), since as of commit c9060bcc12
("layer-shell: replace close() with destroy()") that same logic is
guaranteed to be happen later when wlroots calls handle_destroy() as
part of wlr_layer_surface_v1_destroy().
This lets us remove some NULL checks from other unmap/destroy callbacks,
which is nice. We also don't need to check that the wlr_output points to
a valid sway_output anymore, since we unset that pointer after disabling
the output as of commit a0bbe67076 ("Address emersions comments on
output re-enabling") Just to be safe, I've added assertions that the
wlr_output is non-NULL wherever we use it.
Fixes#6120.
The existing code gives this error when compiled with GCC 12:
../sway/server.c: In function ‘server_init’:
../sway/server.c:217:75: error: ‘%d’ directive output may be truncated writing between 1 and 11 bytes into a region of size 8 [-Werror=format-truncation=]
217 | snprintf(name_candidate, sizeof(name_candidate), "wayland-%d", i);
| ^~
../sway/server.c:217:66: note: directive argument in the range [-2147483647, 32]
217 | snprintf(name_candidate, sizeof(name_candidate), "wayland-%d", i);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
../sway/server.c:217:17: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 10 and 20 bytes into a destination of size 16
217 | snprintf(name_candidate, sizeof(name_candidate), "wayland-%d", i);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because i is never negative, this is a false positive, but it is easy to
change i to unsigned to silence the error.
active_keyboard may be NULL, in which case an invalid pointer could be
passed to wlr_input_method_keyboard_grab_v2_send_modifiers. This
procedure call is unnecessary since wlroots commit 372a52ec "input
method: send modifiers in set_keyboard", so the call can simply be
removed.
Fixes#6836.
Currently, a floating window that's been fullscreened can send us
xdg_toplevel::move, and we'll enter seatop_move_floating, which lets us
drag the surface around while it's fullscreen. We don't want
this--fullscreen surfaces should always be aligned to the screen--so add
the same check that seatop_default already does when entering this mode.
Tested with Weston's weston-fullscreen demo, which sends a move request
if you click anywhere on its surface.
When REAPER submenu is closed `XCB_CLIENT_MESSAGE` with type
`NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW` is sent to set focus to parent menu.
Closes: https://github.com/swaywm/sway/issues/6324
An address of a variable can never be NULL, so checking it doesn't make
sense; and `destroy_buffer()` can operate on already destroyed buffers
anyway.
Fixes#6780
wlroots often requires dependencies more recent than Sway's.
Executing the wlroots subproject first will give Meson a chance to
find these newer dependencies, possibly via subprojects.
The subproject will override the "wlroots" dependency when executed,
so we don't need to use get_variable anymore.
References: https://github.com/swaywm/sway/pull/6498#issuecomment-1001746017
